Telangana High Court Directs State to Clarify Stance on Activists' Demands
The Telangana High Court has taken a significant step in addressing the long-standing demands of activists involved in the statehood movement. On Monday, the court directed the state government to clarify its position on a writ petition filed by a group of individuals who claim to have participated in the agitation for a separate Telangana state. The petitioners are seeking the grant of 250-square-yard plots and a monthly pension of Rs 2,500 as recognition for their contributions during the movement.
Petitioners' Claims and Court's Scrutiny
In their petition, the activists, who identified themselves as members of the Telangana Joint Action Committee (JAC), argued that their participation in the statehood movement is evidenced by criminal cases lodged against them during the agitation. They urged the court to declare the inaction of the principal secretary of the Revenue Department in issuing orders regarding their demands as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
However, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy expressed skepticism during the hearing. He questioned the legal grounds for such demands, noting that lakhs of people participated in the movement, and granting an order in favor of the petitioners could open a Pandora's box, leading to a flood of similar pleas. The judge emphasized the need for a clear government policy or order to support such claims.
Court's Inquiry into Government Promises
When asked if any government order had been issued promising pension and land to the activists, the counsel for the petitioners, Karunakar Reddy, submitted a letter dated May 2025. This letter, forwarded by a district collector to the principal secretary of the Revenue Department, suggested providing benefits to participants of the movement from 1969 to 2014. However, Justice Reddy pointed out that a letter from an official does not confer an enforceable right on the petitioners.
"There has to be a GO," the judge observed, questioning when and where the government had made such a promise. He noted that the letter was merely a request from the JAC to drop criminal cases and award pensions and plots, and not an agreement by the government. "You should have some enforceable right," he reiterated, drawing a distinction between the statehood movement and historical struggles like the freedom movement against the British and the Nizam.
Previous Cases and Further Proceedings
In response, the petitioners' counsel mentioned that two individuals had previously been allotted plots after a government order was issued, but these orders were not available on the official portal. This claim added another layer to the complexity of the case, highlighting potential inconsistencies in the implementation of such benefits.
The court then directed the assistant government pleader for assignment to obtain instructions or clarification on the state's stance regarding this matter. The hearing has been adjourned, with the next session scheduled for February 23, when the government is expected to present its position.
Implications and Broader Context
This case underscores the ongoing challenges in addressing the demands of activists who played pivotal roles in social and political movements. The Telangana statehood movement, which culminated in the formation of Telangana as a separate state in 2014, involved widespread participation, and many activists continue to seek recognition and compensation for their efforts.
The High Court's cautious approach reflects concerns about setting precedents that could lead to numerous similar claims, potentially straining state resources. At the same time, it highlights the need for transparent and consistent policies to handle such post-movement demands, ensuring that genuine contributions are acknowledged without opening the door to frivolous litigation.
As the state government prepares its response, all eyes will be on the upcoming hearing to see how this delicate balance between activist rights and administrative practicality is addressed. The outcome could have significant implications for how similar cases are handled in the future, not just in Telangana but across other regions with historical movements.
